2nd March 2006, 02:29 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
If there is to be a campaign for a change in the law (bearing in mind that PPG16 is not law, as such), what law will the campaign aim to change, and what is the change being proposed?
As I see it, to coin a phrase, we would need legislation to prohibit ploughing or other detrimental activities to or on areas with known archaeological remains.
Would there be an extension to PPG16 in effect, to include agricuture as development, thus requiring farmers to apply for permmission to plough? Would such an application be considered in the same way as a planning application, i.e. you might still get mitigation or "preservation by record?"
Or are you suggesting that class consents for scheduled monuments are abolished/amended? In which case only scheduled monuments are protected and we're back to square one, unless we schedule everything - then nothing ever gets built or ploughed.
Certainly the present arrangement could do with re-thinking but I see a number of questions to be resolved!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Isn't it a shame that we [u]need</u> to think of having laws because of the 'I want' society we're in today. When I first read PPG16 I, naively, assumed it would be followed as 'what should be done'. It seems we now have to litigate against people's greed.
P